performance management in the public sector

"Varieties of Public Sector Labour Markets: Transformed?" 7./8. December 2007, Halle

Stephan Grohs Ruhr-Uni Bochum

Performance Management in the Public Sector

Approaches and Impacts in European Local Governments



Questions

How is Performance Management implemented in European Local Governments (England, France, Germany)?

What are the effects of different variants of Institutionalization?



Research Background

HBS-project „Ten Years of the „New Steering Model“: Evaluation of Local Government Reform“ (2004-2006)

DFG-project „European Local Systems under Change“ (2007-2009)

with Jörg Bogumil, Sabine Kuhlmann, Falk Ebinger, Renate Reiter at the universities of Bochum and Potsdam



Structure of Presentation

1. Performance Management and the NPM2. The Implementation of Performance

Mangement in three countries (E,F,G)3. Effects on the Local Level4. Conclusions



A New Wave?

„The movement has been striking because of the number of nations that have taken up the reform agenda in such a short time and because of how similar their basic strategies have been“ (Kettl 2000:1)

Diagnoses: Extensification Intensification Externalisation

But: Big Differences between States and Administrative Levels



Performance Management (PM): The Promise

Performance Management for… Improvement Efficency and Savings Accountability Protection Learning and Self-Improvement



Variants of Perf. Measurements

External vs. Internal Measured units Measured levels Measured dimensions Problems of measurability,

multidimensionality and comparability Transparency Unintended consequences



European Local Governments –Traditional Profiles

England France Germany

Administrative Culture

-Public Interest culture

-Rule of Law -Rule of Law

Constitutional Status

- No constitutional guarantee- Ultra vires-principle

- Const. Guarantee (Art. 72- General Competence

-Const. Guarantee (Art. 72- General Competence

Territorial Profile - Northern European

- Southern European

- Partly Northern, partly Southern European

Functional Profile - Strong /multifunctional

- Weak / monofunctional

- Strong /multifunctional

Political Profile - Weak(Anglo Group)

- Strong(Franco Group)

-Strong(North Middle European Group)



Reform Experiences since the 80s


NPM - Stong Impact-„top down“- CCT- Best Value- CPA

- Middle- „bottom up“- Large Cities as forerunners: „France à deux vitesses“

- Latecomer-„bottom up“- NSM as blueprint

Functional Profile

- Weakening of LG: Contracting Out; „Quangos“, State Intervention

- Strengthening of LG: Decentralization

- Moderate Decentralization

State Control - Strengthened: Audit Commission etc.

- Weakened - Constantly weak



England: Externally imposed Perf. Management

Replacement of CCT durch Best Value (BV, 1999) and the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA, 2002)

BV = indicator based supervision of local performance and output quality Binding for all local councils Annual review of Performance Indicators Requirement for LGs to develop „BV-

Performance Plans Periodical evaluation of local services



France: Pragmatism from „bottom up“

„Communes innovatrices“ as triggers of reform (bottom up)

Performance and Quality control for outsourced services (délegation)

State level as follower (LOLF): global budgeting, performance evaluation (top down)

Spread of Quality and performance Management (N=82 Städte>5.000 EW)

Performance reports (tableaux de bord; 30%); Städte über 20.000 EW: 50%

Cost accounting (comptabilité analytique; 55%) Professional Controlling (15%) contratualisation (contrats d‘objectifs)



Germany: Performance Management by Blueprint: NSM

New Steering Model (NSM as a blueprint of reform

Bottom-up-Movement Discursive Hegemony: 82,4 % NSM-oriented

municipalities (over 10.000 Inhabitants) But large implementation gap



NSM-Elements Comprehensively Implemented

New Department Structures 43.6%

Strategic Steering Units 25.9%

Decentralized/ Operative Controlling Units 10.9%

Internal Service Centres 23.9%

Abolishing Levels of Hierarchy 34.5%

Decentralized Management of Resources 33.1%

New Budgeting Procedures 33.1%

Output Analyses (Definition of “Products”) 29.0%

Cost and Activity Accounting 12.7%

Reporting 22.1%

Contracts between Top Management and Services

24.3%

Contracts between Politics and Administration

14.8%

Quality Management 13,9%

One-Stop-Agencies (Bürgerämter) 57,5%

Customer Surveys 54,7%

Citizens‘ Charters/ Service Guarantees 7,1%

(n=870)



Comparison of PM-systems


Triggers „top down“ „bottom up“ „bottom up“

Spread Total High in larger cities, low in small municipalities

High discursive influence, but implementation gaps

Standardization High Low High

Implementation style

Imposition Pragmatic Experiment

Bureaucratic



Effects: England

Inputs Partly Efficency Gains High costs High workload through inspections

Outputs Hollowing out of strong functional profile Partly (sectoral) quality improvements, but limited evidence on that Output-distortions and unintended consequences

System and Cultural Changes

Rather limited use for internal steering (inapt indicators) Demotivation through „inspection overload“ High TransparencySubversive Reactions: Gaming and all get better



Effects: France

Inputs Efficiency was no explicit aim of reform Moderately risen costs

Outputs Quality Improvements due to policyoriented approach („projets de service“) and „fitting“ indicators Service improvements


Pragmatic use for internal steering in (inapt indicators) Neglect of external dimension: No transparency and interommunal comparisons



Effects: Germany

Inputs Partly Efficency Gains, but no clear evidence available High costs

Outputs Partly (sectoral) quality improvements: (Quality improvements, Customer orientation, Processing times) „Window of Opportunity“ for sectoral approaches of reform


Rather limited use for internal steering (inapt „bureaucratic indicators) Demotivation effects No transparency gains



mayors (n=680)staff councils (n=502)

R eform e ffo rts pa id o ff

S avings have been rea lised

S ta ff is dem otiva ted by re fo rm

C ontro l th rough the counc il has im proved

S tra teg ic capac ity has im proved

C ustom er's sa tis fac tion im proved

S trong lyagree

P artia lly agree

P artia lly d isagree

S trog ly d isagree



Conclusions

Strong (at least disursive) impulse for installation of procedures of self-evaluation and monitoring with the possibility of organizational learning

Gains in transparency for decision-makers which could foster accountability

In the case of „voluntary systems“ in F and G the implementation remains heterogenous and incomparable

The use of information for „evidence-based“ decision-making remains low in highly standardized systems

Costs for conception, implementation and standard operation of PM remain high

Transparency deficits in continental Europe remain Political decision makers show little interest in making

data transparent



Perspectives

Growing importance of PM due to fiscal pressures and interventions from the state level

Growing self-interest of decision-makers for evidence-based policy-making (accountability)?

Quality management as a part of „consumer democracy“ (Sweden)

Fostering the use of performance data for steering? Reduction in the number of indicators Orientation on real steering needs Abdication of generalist approaches



Thank you for your attention!

performance management in the public sector

Documents

performance evaluation

performance management

triggers of reform

reform agenda

nsmnew steering model

downspread of quality

quality control

blueprint of reformbottom